Subscription pricing
Hey guys,
How can we tell the difference between a causal assertion and a “if then” statement?
I chose D by intuition, but I did struggle for a long while.
JY mentions “causation” between using a car phone & pose a threat to safe driving during his explanation.
In essence, if A causes B, then decrease A also decrease the likelihood of B.
Yes, if we explain it in such a manner, then it makes sense to me.
However, I wonder how do we know “using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving” is not a “if then” statement?
If using car phone –> pose threat to safe driving
If this is the case, /using car phone does NOT lead to /pose threat to safe driving (the oldest trick in the book)
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-22-section-4-question-13/
0
2 comments
Conclusion: the new bill should be adopted.
Why?
It's dangerous. People wouldn't do the dangerous thing if it was illegal.
Prephrase: [it's an assumption argument, what is missing here? How do we close the link between a thing being dangerous and a new bill being adopted?]
We should always adopt bills that will make things less dangerous.
Answer: (d)
"using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving" could be an if/then statement... but so what? You are looking for an answer choice that links the premises to the conclusion. We are looking to make a world where the new bill should be adopted.
It sounds like you are trying to weaken something (the idea that car phones threaten safe driving) that doesn't matter here.
Look at the phrase you pulled from the stimulus. It's helpful to look for words/phrases that indicates the type of reasoning used. There's language there that indicates causation (but not sufficient/necessary). Do you see it?